[mikewarot]

That computer security is a solved issue. Multilevel secure systems were perfected in the 1970s, but people went with Unix and it's derivatives anyway. So, we'll be stuck having civilizational crisis because of this for a few more decades.

[DemocracyFTW2]

I will not comment on a now-obscure putatively secure system (which presumably has not been battle-tested, at scale, with network cables plugged in, under modern-day conditions) vs UNIX and its derivatives, but I will say that MS Windows has been lacking security considerations right from the outset. Incidentally, the most recent Outage of Global Reach (OGR—there, I coined it) was due to millions of Windows machines infected. So I think the argumentation should be: Corporate cares so little about resilience, diversity of approaches and stability and so much about fast money and good quarterly reports—they tend to just throw millions of identically-configured Windows boxes at a problem instead of even considering some or all could run a different system.

So, if anything, all considered it's really more damning.

[bediger4000]

I'm sceptical, which proves this is controversial. I've used one of those allegedly ML secure systems (NOS, on a CDC mainframe). The two reasons NOS and other systems of that vintage were considered secure is that nobody of a hackerish nature got to use them, and they were so damn stupid nobody else cared enough to break them.